Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description usefully adds that the derived proposal is unsaved, deterministic, and involves no model call or persistence — meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary read action and the optional mode, with the no-side-effect clause appended. No wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description conveys the main mode and the optional preview. With no output schema, it should say a bit more about what is returned (profile fields, pagination/bounded results) to be fully self-sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains derivePreview (unsaved, deterministic proposal), but gives no meaning for limit (default 20, max 50), leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (saved watch profiles), plus an optional derived proposal mode. It does not name or distinguish itself from the closely related siblings save_opportunity_profile and search_opportunities, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: read saved profiles, with an optional preview. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to save_opportunity_profile as the write-side counterpart or to search_opportunities as the alternative for searching.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.